Talavar

I know it's april first, but I DEMAND that you put at least one in the game.. lol

This is exactly the problem I was pointing to with "world origin rebasing" Good catch there. It shows you understand the basic problem with vast scales. Once you hit the decimal cap, you get planets in large orbits ticking kilometers instead of centimeters. There are of course ways to correct this, it's just a matter of implementing them with close quarters smoothing. basically when you get close it detects tick ratings and distance traveled, then creates sub-plots between them and moves them smoothly. Ive found another way around this, simply by reducing all models' sizes by 1000 and dividing all distances by the same amount. This saves decimal space. basically you put the planets into decimals to take decimals away from the orbits while keeping the base relative scale intact.

Some people make some pretty beautiful scenes.

That's the dream, isn't it. lol It does look very good, though I do it mostly as a hobby. I don't know what to add to it though, really. lol.. I guess typical mining and planetary base building would be options, but other than that, I'm just not sure.. lol

But it's not near completion. >.< there's a LONG way to go. and making assets is the one of the biggest part of the work. That's already finished, and can literally be dropped right in unreal with a simple converter.. Though, I'm not expecting them to actually do it. As I said "not sure why they stuck with unity"

I hate to be "that guy" but well.....I'm not sure why you stuck with unity on this one. I experimented with unreal 5.03 creating planets and gravity wells using newtonian calculations, and it worked well. (Granted my makeshift rocket was basically a pencil) Would probably work great in multiplayer if you enable world origin rebasing,. Anyway, my world looked fantastic (fully forested) from any distance, and I had minimal cycle hitches while dealing with gravity and (primitive) drag calculations. 70+ fps using nanite rendering on a gtx 1660 super. My lowest dip was 42 fps and it was while I was quickly swinging my camera over lots of terrain. I imagine you'd need someone well versed in U5 to implement the map scene calculations though. Atleast - someone way more versed than me. However, I was able to put it all together in about 2 days including the earth and moon. After that initial trial, I scrapped it and have started working on my own simulator. It's just a suggestion. You guys already have your assets created. moving over could be advantageous. I'm just one guy, but you have an entire team. I'm sure you could pull it off fairly easily. Now that I've gotten over the learning curve, Unreal feels way less clunky to me than unity. (learning Unreal would be the biggest hurdle) You may all now verbally abuse me, and call me stupid for my input. lol

Honestly, it shouldn't take too much to run a server, since it will only deal with pre-calculated numbers by other peoples systems. For instance, your client computer will simply report DV, orientation, vector, etc, and the server will recieve precalculated movement info.. the only time things might get rough is during a collision. Which still may be handled by client computers, making the server just a relay of numbers from client to client. If that's the case it might not take much to run it at all.

Ghosting was the main problem, due to how it was slapped over top of the original game code, and not in the normal cycle. So for instance, Luna would detect your orientation, coords, vector, etc, then send it to the server. It would do it again very quickly, and would basically delete the old copy of your ship, then create it again instantly. It worked very well, and felt smooth. however it seems that sometimes it would miss an execution loop on loading a new ship that's already on the ground in the world somewhere, or loading in another player in your loading zone, and cause a ghost ship to be placed in the same location as your ship, causing an explosion.. basically it made 2 ships simultaneously in the same position, so the game would detect a collision... boom. It happend roughly 5% of the time for us, so we'd have to quickload every so often. But when it was working well, it was really fun.

Why is it that every "multiplayer" thread has this theme/worry/pouting of blowing stuff up all the time. Put down your medal of honor for a moment, and stop playing rust... All of my friends that I play ark/minecraft/space engineers/valhalla/etc on personal servers with, all play cooperatively. We don't WANT to blow our stuff up. If you have that problem, sounds like you need some new gamer buddies. Dark multiplayer is now called "luna". Me and my friends played it for a while, it was really fun for a bit, but since it's not part of the base code itself, and is tacked on, it presented cloning problems occasionally. Since MP is going to be part of the code itself in KSP2, This should be remedied (hopefully) fairly easily. WE did manage to build a mining facility together on the moon though. It was really fun! We did play career mode, but it was sharing money/science/research/etc. never tried to do separate since we were playing as a team anyway.. (edit: current version) As for warping, you just click the warp button. IT moves your time stamp to the most future timestamp and places your ship accordingly (it does this in a smart way). Then you can land, etc. Then when everyone is there with all needed mats, you slam the base together in normal speed. Good stuff.. lol

While it looks nice....... Co-op play, or nothing. Lets be realistic.. with 64 gigs of ram and a banging processor, I can make ksp1 look fantastic, add interstellar travel, and build mining facilities/eco platforms already with mods. At a 50$ pricetag, it better have functional CO-op. I won't even touch it until it does.

Sweet Jesus... After a hiatus because of a lack of EPL in my multi system playthrough, I figured I'd drop in and check for progress. Perfect timing. Thanks guys! I'll let you know if I experience any hiccups.

Is this currently working in 1.12.2, or are you fellas on an older version?

Is it currently working with 1.12.2? or are you fellas on an older version?

floppy rockets.... That's what I don't want. I want metal to act like metal... lol.. I've never seen a piece of steel girder bend 90 degrees then straighten back out again. Bending should be kept down to a minimum... (a realistic minimum) IF KSP1 is any indicator, we can simply go into the INI file and see the list of planets/systems there anyway. Not that you'll be able to see them, but you'll know what exists, and their parameters. Kinda hard to block viewing those .. The only way to keep them from being viewed is if they were hard coded in the EXE file. Which I doubt will happen.

I'm playing with Kopernicus, I have 7 other star systems, and I've encountered a problem.. asteroids don't spawn in my home system.. Yet they spawn everywhere else. I've turned up the amount to spawn (multiplied by 7) in the hopes that it would level out the field, but to no avail. Anyone have a solution for this, other than going striaght stock asteroid system in the Kopernicus INI?? PS: I'm aware this should probably go in addon discussions, but that forum is about as dead as it gets.